Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Here's what I don't understand!

Why the heck are bothering to ask possibly THE most complicated astrophysic question in a Spirituality Forum when you've got the information super-highway at you fingertips?!

Sod off to Google and look up theories on the origins of the universe, then spend the next few hours reading them. That way we can all avoid the mass posting of the usual zealous Darwin vs. God drivel.

I'll tell you why I ask questions here verses hitting the net, because
I want to get a back and forth conversation and hear the opinions
of those I agree and disagree with. If your answer don't bother me
go to the web, don't bother reading and responding here, this is
the forum for such activity. There is a time for both, why complain
when another asks questions?
Kelly

Originally posted by c guy1
I'm sorry about posting on pre-thread stuff. Just wanted to address a couple comments, all in all I'm enjoying reading the explanations.

He's saying that about 99% of the people who STUDIED it. A world wide survey actually shows that a majority of the world are Christians (vs other beliefs such as Morman, Islam, and Atheist) I heard this in World History ...[text shortened]... se someone tried to give me the "magic bullet" and I realized that it's only a dud.

That is an excellent start then. I was in that same place about 8 years ago. I went to a fundamentalist xian high school from the age of 12 to 15. While I was there, I learned and believed YEC. I listened to Ken Hamm and Duane Gish and the like. I thought I had all the answers, until I actually met educated biologists. Then I realized that I didn't have even the smallest fraction of the story, and what I did possess was pretty much a distortion.

Now I am no biologist, so I won't attenuate the strong argument for evolutionary theory with my amateur understanding. I will step in where I can though. As an economist, I'll be vigilante standing guard for any YEC's or IDer's who try to inject some Dembski-esque "creation math."

Originally posted by telerion
That is an excellent start then. I was in that same place about 8 years ago. I went to a fundamentalist xian high school from the age of 12 to 15. While I was there, I learned and believed YEC. I listened to Ken Hamm and Duane Gish and the like. I thought I had all the answers, until I actually met educated biologists. Then I realized that I didn't ha ...[text shortened]... nding guard for any YEC's or IDer's who try to inject some Dembski-esque "creation math."

Are you gonna cough up the survey showing 99.99% of biologists to be firm believers in the TOE -- or should I put the statistic down as an educated guess? 😀

Originally posted by telerion
Unless you really are just looking for an argument in which case you have no intention of understanding why 99.99% of all the people who have devoted their lives to the study of biology accept the fact that evolution has happened and continues to happen, nor why nearly the same fraction agree that the Theory of Evolution best fits observation and has been u ...[text shortened]... 'll leave it to the resident bio? chem? professor to give you a short correspondence course.

99.99% of biologists believe that microevolution occurs - OK I don't doubt that. Now would you supply the survey on macroevolution?

Originally posted by dj2becker
99.99% of biologists believe that microevolution occurs - OK I don't doubt that. Now would you supply the survey on macroevolution?

For those that don't know, microevolution is like a brown bug
getting spots that attract its mate or the case of the moth that
became mottled when formerly it was all grey when confronted
with trees that had been made mottled colored from industrial
pollution in England, or a virus modifying itself to become dangerous.
Macroevolution is the part where once there was a fish, then Boom,
there is a fish with short legs that enabled it to crawl out on land,
in otherwords a giant shift from one form to another.
The gist of that is there has been very little fossil evidence of the
'missing link' between such species. The ID'ers jump on that like
a dog on a bone, knowing that can cause a split in the lay community
who don't know a dog bone from a bent tree limb.

Originally posted by Halitose
Are you gonna cough up the survey showing 99.99% of biologists to be firm believers in the TOE -- or should I put the statistic down as an educated guess? 😀

Well in comparison you'd be safe calling me educated.

I've already admitted that I do not have a survey on hand. It was a characterization. What figure do you think is more accurate???

Am I off by more than 1%?

Stop playing the fool Hal and live in truth.

Edit: Does my honest testimony upset you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
For those that don't know, microevolution is like a brown bug
getting spots that attract its mate or the case of the moth that
became mottled when formerly it was all grey when confronted
with trees that had been made mottled colored from industrial
pollution in England, or a virus modifying itself to become dangerous.
Macroevolution is the part where ...[text shortened]... at can cause a split in the lay community
who don't know a dog bone from a bent tree limb.

Sounds like a valid problem with the theory to me. That is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould (one of the greatest proponents and scientists of evolutionary theory) developed the ad hoc theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to remove the problem of insufficient fossil evidence.

Originally posted by telerion
Well in comparison you'd be safe calling me educated.

I've already admitted that I do not have a survey on hand. It was a characterization. What figure do you think is more accurate???

Am I off by more than 1%?

Stop playing the fool Hal and live in truth.

Edit: Does my honest testimony upset you?

Well in comparison you'd be safe calling me educated.

LOL, couldn't resist that one could you?

I've already admitted that I do not have a survey on hand. It was a characterization. What figure do you think is more accurate???

Forgive me, I must have missed your admitance. Since I don't know a large percentage of the biology scientists in the world, I can honestly say I don't know - my guess would be as good as yours. I recall a survey that included scientists in general and the TOE got a little over half or was it those who believed in some form of creation. I would have been a little more careful throwing the number out though, if I had wanted to preserve some sort of integrity in this debate.

Does my honest testimony upset you?

Not at all. Why should it?

Originally posted by telerion
Stop playing the fool Hal and live in truth.

*Ahem* *Cough* Couldn't resist a little ad hominem of my own:

Stop playing the fool Hal and live in truth.

Is this a veiled attempt at saying: "Be reasonably, see it my way"?

Originally posted by telerion
You of all people should be the one to ask 🙄.

If such 'proof' were presented, you'd have one of two responses:

1) you'd reject it outright

2) you'd say "yeah, yeah, but so what."

Actually 99.99% might be a little on the low side.

Sorrrryyyyy. I clicked on "last post" and went to pg 3, I only saw this now.

Originally posted by telerion
That is an excellent start then. I was in that same place about 8 years ago. I went to a fundamentalist xian high school from the age of 12 to 15. While I was there, I learned and believed YEC. I listened to Ken Hamm and Duane Gish and the like. I thought I had all the answers, until I actually met educated biologists. Then I realized that I didn't ha ...[text shortened]... nding guard for any YEC's or IDer's who try to inject some Dembski-esque "creation math."

Maybe not a biologist, but I've wondered sometimes Tel. Your knowledge is extremely good.

Originally posted by Halitose
Sounds like a valid problem with the theory to me. That is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould (one of the greatest proponents and scientists of evolutionary theory) developed the ad hoc theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to remove the problem of insufficient fossil evidence.

The minimum time between fossil strata is 10,000 years. There is little need to come up with explanations of why the fossil record is necessarily incomplete. Anyhoo, two words, coelocanth and archaeopteryx. (for c99guy's education, both of these species represent links between species. The coelocanth a (extant) fish, represents an intermediary stage between fish and land animals (lung fish would also be a good example too though. Archaeopteryx is literally a reptile with feathers, which is to say, the worlds oldest (perhaps, there is another contender) bird.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Well in comparison you'd be safe calling me educated.

LOL, couldn't resist that one could you?

I've already admitted that I do not have a survey on hand. It was a characterization. What figure do you think is more accurate???

Forgive me, I must have missed your admitance. Since I don't know a large percentage of the biology scientis ...[text shortened]... n this debate.

Does my honest testimony upset you?

Not at all. Why should it?[/b]

Yes, that survey included political scientists, physicists, chemists, probably geographers, none of which necessarily have any idea about the theory of evolution. I wish they'd have restricted it to biologists.

Originally posted by Halitose
*Ahem* *Cough* Couldn't resist a little ad hominem of my own:

[b]Stop playing the fool Hal and live in truth.

Is this a veiled attempt at saying: "Be reasonably, see it my way"?[/b]

Damn it, Hal, stop being such a nice guy!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The minimum time between fossil strata is 10,000 years. There is little need to come up with explanations of why the fossil record is necessarily incomplete. Anyhoo, two words, coelocanth and archaeopteryx. (for c99guy's education, both of these species represent links between species. The coelocanth a (extant) fish, represents an intermediary stage ...[text shortened]... e with feathers, which is to say, the worlds oldest (perhaps, there is another contender) bird.

Archeopteryx is a fully functioning bird with teeth, and claw-like protrusions at the end of its wings. Did I just say wings? How could you call a reptile? Reptiles don't have wings. You telling me that this is unquestionable proof that birds developed from reptiles. Puulease! This is not science, it's wishful thinking. You need to explain the development of feathers from scales; you need to explain the development of the revolutionary respiratory system of the bird; the development of an entirely different skeletal system; you need to explain how the intermediate form which had neither proper scales nor proper feathers could be favorably selected for. A bird with teeth doesn't prove anything. We have reptiles without teeth, does this mean reptiles developed from birds before birds developed from reptiles?

The biggest problem with your fossil evidence is that it is viewed through the blinders of evolution and then used as proof for evolution. This is circular reasoning to the highest degree.

I could have a similar rant about the coelocanth, a fish caught off the South African coast in the 60's.